Download Word Version

Chapter 13
13.1 It would be better to assign the treatment level randomly to each parcel. The research
plan outlined in the problem may be flawed because the different groups of parcels
might differ systematically. For example, the first 25 parcels of land might have poorer
drainage than the other parcels and this would lead to lower crop yields. The treatment
assignment outlined in the problem would place these 25 parcels in the control group,
thereby overestimating the effect of the fertilizer on crop yields. This problem is
avoided with random assignment of treatments.
13.2 The treatment effect could be estimated as the difference in average cholesterol levels
for the treated group and the untreated (control) group. Data on the weight, age, and
gender of each patient could be used to improve the estimate using the differences
estimator with additional regressors shown in Equation (13.2). This regression may
produce a more accurate estimate because it controls for these additional factors that
may affect cholesterol. If you had data on the cholesterol levels of each patient before he
or she entered the experiment, then the differences-in-differences estimator could be
used. This estimator controls for individual-specific determinants of cholesterol levels
that are constant over the sample period, such as the person’s genetic predisposition to
high cholesterol.
13.3 If the students who were transferred to small classes differed systematically from the
other students, then internal validity is compromised. For example, if the transferred
students tended to have higher incomes and more learning opportunities outside of
school, then they would tend to perform better on standardized tests. The experiment
would incorrectly attribute this performance to the smaller class size. Information on
original random assignment could be used as an instrument in a regression like Equation
(13.3) (page 480) to restore internal validity. The original random assignment is a valid
instrument because it is exogenous (uncorrelated with the regression error) and is
relevant (correlated with the actual assignment).
13.4 The Hawthorne effect is unlikely to be a problem in the fertilizer example, unless (for
example) workers cultivated the different parcels of land more or less intensively
depending on the treatment. Patients in the cholesterol study might be more diligent
taking their medication than patients not in an experiment. Making the cholesterol
experiment double-blind, so that neither the doctor nor the patient knows whether the
patient is receiving the treatment or the placebo, would reduce experimental effects.
Experimental effects may be important in experiments like STAR, if the teachers feel
that the experiment provides them with an opportunity to prove that small class sizes are
best.
13.5 The earthquake introduced randomness in class sizes that make it appear as if the
treatment is randomly assigned. The discussion in Section 12.1 describes how
instrumental variable regression can use the induced changes in class sizes to estimate
the effect of class size on test scores.
1